Address correspondence to: Magnus Konradsson, MD, Department of Clinical Science, Investigation and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, 14186 Stockholm, Sweden. Email: magnus.konradsson@ki.se
Specific author contribution: Design: Magnus Konradsson, Magnus Nilsson, and Mats Lindblad. Conception, administration of Delphi study, data extraction, data analysis, and drafting of article: Magnus Konradsson and Magnus Nilsson. Statistical analysis: Nelson Ndegwa. Chairman of Interim Live Group Discussions: Magnus Nilsson. Participation in Delphi study and Interim Live Group discussions: All authors except Mats Lindblad and Nelson Ndegwa. Revision and final approval of article: All authors.
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creative commons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
Original Article
Diagnostic criteria and symptom grading for delayed gastric conduit emptying
after esophagectomy for cancer: international expert consensus based on a
modified Delphi process
M. Konradsson, 1,2M. I. van Berge Henegouwen3, C. Bruns4, M. A. Chaudry5, E. Cheong6, M. A. Cuesta7,
G. E. Darling8, S. S. Gisbertz3, S. M. Griffin9, C. A. Gutschow, R. van Hillegersberg11, W. Hofstetter12,
A. H. Hölscher13, Y. Kitagawa14, J. J. B. van Lanschot15, M. Lindblad1,16, L. E. Ferri17, D. E.
Low18, M. D. P. Luyer19, N. Ndegwa1, S. Mercer20, K. Moorthy28, C. R. Morse22, P. Nafteux23,24, G. A. P. Nieuwehuijzen19, P. Pattyn25, C. Rosman26, J. P. Ruurda11, J. Räsänen27, P. M. Schneider28, W. Schröder4, B. Sgromo29, H. Van Veer23,24, B. P. L. Wijnhoven15, M. Nilsson1,16
1
Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden,
2
Department of Gastroenterology, Landspitali National University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland, 3Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam,4Department of General, Visceral and Cancer Surgery, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany, 5Department of Surgery, Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK,6Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, UK,7Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 8Department of Surgery, Division of Thoracic Surgery, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada,9Northern Oesophagogas-tric Unit, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK,10Department of Surgery and Transplantation, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland,11Universitair Medisch Centrum Utrecht, Utrecht, The Nether-lands,12Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas,13Centre for Esophageal and Gastric Surgery, AGAPLESION Markus Krankenhaus, Frankfurt, Germany,14Department of Surgery, Keio University School of Medicine, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-Ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan,15Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands,16Department of Upper Abdominal Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden,
17
Department of Thoracic and Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada,18Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA,19Department of Surgery, Catharina Ziekenhuis, Eindhoven, The Netherlands,20Queen Alexandra Hospital Portsmouth, United Kingdom,21Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK, 22Division of Thoracic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA,23Department of Thoracic Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, 24Department of Chronic Diseases, Metabolism and Aging, KU Leuven, Belgium, 25Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Ghent University Hospital , Ghent , Belgium,26Department of surgery, Radboud university center Nijmegen, The Netherlands,27Department of General, Thoracic and Esophageal Surgery, Heart and Lung Center, Helsinki University Hospital and Helsinki University, Helsinki, Finland, 28The Center for Visceral, Thoracic and Specialized Tumor Surgery, Hirslanden Medical Center, Zurich, Switzerland, and29Oxford University Hospitals, Oxford, UK.
SUMMARY.Delayed gastric conduit emptying (DGCE) after esophagectomy for cancer is associated with adverse
outcomes and troubling symptoms. Widely accepted diagnostic criteria and a symptom grading tool for DGCE are missing. This hampers the interpretation and comparison of studies. A modified Delphi process, using repeated web-based questionnaires, combined with live interim group discussions was conducted by 33 experts within the field, from Europe, North America, and Asia. DGCE was divided into early DGCE if present within 14 days of surgery and late if present later than 14 days after surgery. The final criteria for early DGCE, accepted by 25 of 27 (93%) experts,
were as follows: >500 mL diurnal nasogastric tube output measured on the morning of postoperative day 5 or later or >100% increased gastric tube width on frontal chest x-ray projection together with the presence of an air–fluid level. The final criteria for late DGCE accepted by 89% of the experts were as follows: the patient should have ‘quite a bit’ or ‘very much’ of at least two of the following symptoms; early satiety/fullness, vomiting, nausea, regurgitation or inability to meet caloric need by oral intake and delayed contrast passage on upper gastrointestinal water-soluble contrast radiogram or on timed barium swallow. A symptom grading tool for late DGCE was constructed grading each symptom as: ‘not at all’, ‘a little’, ‘quite a bit’, or ‘very much’, generating 0, 1, 2, or 3 points, respectively. For the five symptoms retained in the diagnostic criteria for late DGCE, the minimum score would be 0, and the maximum score would be 15. The final symptom grading tool for late DGCE was accepted by 27 of 31 (87%) experts. For the first time, diagnostic criteria for early and late DGCE and a symptom grading tool for late DGCE are available, based on an international expert consensus process.
KEY WORDS: consensus, esophagectomy, gastric emptying, malnutrition.
INTRODUCTION
Multimodal treatment including esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction is the treatment of choice for esophageal cancer. Recent improvements in survival after curative treatment put additional focus on short- and long-term morbidity and functional outcome.1, 2 Delayed gastric conduit emptying
(DGCE) is recognized as one of the most important ostesophagectomy problems. DGCE is associated with short-term adverse outcomes including anasto-motic leakage, pneumonia, increased ICU, and total hospital stay. DGCE may also lead to nutritional problems and a reduced quality of life.2–6
The pathophysiology of DGCE is not fully under-stood. Proposed contributing causes are pyloric and gastric dysmotility due to vagal and sympathetic den-ervation, mobilization of the conduit from a pos-itive pressure compartment to a negative pressure compartment, and disruption of the native antireflux mechanisms.7, 8 Also other factors, such as conduit
size or reconstructive route, relate to variations in clin-ical presentation.8, 9 No widely accepted diagnostic
criteria and tools to evaluate the presence and severity of DGCE are available. This has led to limitations in the assessment of the current literature on the incidence of DGCE and the effect of preventive and therapeutic measures.9,10
To establish diagnostic criteria and symptom grad-ing for DGCE, we conducted an international expert consensus process, based on modified Delphi method-ology. This was combined with live interim group dis-cussions. The Delphi process is a questionnaire-based method that enables experts to express their opinion independently, avoiding the risk of dominant speakers influencing consensus work in open sessions.11,12The
Delphi process methodology is well established and has previously been used to achieve expert consensus within various medical fields.13,14
The aims of this expert consensus process were (i) to reach international agreement regarding diag-nostic criteria for DGCE after esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction, both in the immediate postoperative phase and in a more
long-term perspective and (ii) to reach international agreement regarding a symptom grading tool for DGCE after esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS Modified Delphi expert consensus process
Expert group
This international expert consensus process was a collaboration between experts in Europe, North America, and Asia, using repeated online question-naires and interim live group discussions. The consor-tium of 33 experts included a previously assembled collaborative group of surgeons in Europe within the field of minimally invasive esophagectomy, the European Minimally Invasive Osophagectomy Think Tank, supplemented by a number of international leading esophageal surgeons listed in Table 1. A modified Delphi process with live interim group discussions was used to gradually achieve consensus on the exact combination of symptoms, clinical findings, and diagnostic modalities required for the diagnosis of DGCE. The same method was used to reach expert consensus on symptoms and methods used for severity grading of DGCE.
Delphi study
A literature search was performed in April 2017 to scan the published literature for possibly relevant symptoms and diagnostic modalities suggested to represent DGCE. The search was performed in PubMed using the following MESH terms: esophagec-tomy, gastric emptying, and gastric outlet obstruc-tion; additionally, we complemented the search with the following terms: delayed gastric emptying and gastric conduit dysfunction. The Delphi round 1 questionnaire included multiple choice questions with options graded on a 5-point Likert scale evaluating the experts’ opinion on both frequency of each symptom (symptom present in 0–20%, 21–40%,
Table 1 Participating experts
Name Country Institution
Mark I van Berge Henegouwen The Netherlands Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam
Christiane Bruns Germany University Hospital Cologne
Asif Chaudry UK The Royal Marsden Cancer Centre, London
Edward Cheong UK Norfolk & Norwich University Hospital
Miguel Cuesta The Netherlands Free University Medical Center Amsterdam
Gail E. Darling Canada University Health Network
Suzanne S Gisberz The Netherlands Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam
Michael Griffin UK Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle
Christian Gutschow Switzerland University Hospital Zurich Richard van Hillegersberg The Netherlands University Medical Center Utrecht
Wayne Hofstetter USA Johns Hopkins Cancer Center, Houston
Arnulf Hölscher Germany Agaplesion Markus Hospital Frankfurt
Yuko Kitagawa Japan Keio University Hospital, Tokyo
Magnus Konradsson Sweden/Iceland Landspitali National University Hospital Jan JB van Lanschot The Netherlands Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam
Lorenzo Ferri Canada Montreal General Hospital
Donald Low USA Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle
Misha D Luyer The Netherlands Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven
Stuart Mercer UK Queen Alexandra Hospital Portsmouth
Krishna Moorthy UK St. Mary’s Hospital, London
Christopher Morse USA Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
Philippe Nafteux Belgium Leuven University Hospital
Grard A Nieuwenhuijzen The Netherlands Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven
Magnus Nilsson Sweden Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm
Piet Pattyn Belgium Ghent University
Camiel Rosman The Netherlands Radboud University Medical Center
Jelle P Ruurda The Netherlands Utrecht Medical Center
Jari Räsänen Finland Helsinki University Hospital
Paul M Schneider Switzerland Hirslanden Medical Center, Zürich
Wolfgang Schröder Germany University of Cologne
Bruno Sgromo UK Oxford University Hospitals
Hans Van Veer Belgium Leuven University Hospital
Bas PL Wijnhoven The Netherlands Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam
41–60%, 61–80%, or 81–100% of cases of DGCE) and specificity of each symptom (not at all specific, slightly specific, moderately specific, specific, or very specific) for DGCE. For diagnostic modalities, experts were asked to grade the strength of support for the diagnosis of DGCE that each diagnostic modality would provide on a 5-point Likert scale. Opportunities were given in each Delphi round to suggest additional items, and fields for additional comments were available throughout the question-naires. Repeated Delphi rounds were planned until consensus would be achieved on which symptoms and diagnostic modalities should be kept to form diagnos-tic criteria, based on successive exclusions during the Delphi process. Repeated Delphi rounds were planned until consensus was reached on diagnostic criteria and a symptom grading tool for DGCE. After each Delphi round, a live interim group discussion was planned, until the last Delphi round would test the final product of the consensus process. In the last Delphi round, basic demography of participants was gathered. The Delphi process was performed using an online survey-system (SurveyMonkey, Palo Alto, CA). The complete Delphi survey questionnaires are provided in theSupplementary Appendix 1.
Live interim group discussions
After analysis of the results of each Delphi round, live interim group discussions were planned as a part of the consensus process, until the last Delphi round. The group discussions were planned to provide opportu-nities to raise safety concerns, discuss practical issues, and provide suggestions for further developments to the diagnostic criteria and symptom severity tool to be considered in following Delphi rounds on the basis of the results of previous rounds.
Statistics and consensus algorithms
Consensus to exclude any symptom from the diag-nostic criteria was reached when at least 50% of the experts considered frequency or specificity of the symptom to be in the lower two levels of a 5-level Likert scale. Consensus to exclude any diagnostic modality was reached when at least 50% of the experts considered the strength of the diagnostic modality supporting the diagnosis to be of the two lowest levels of a 5-level Likert scale.
In Delphi round 2, consensus was considered to be achieved if 50% agreed on 1–2 of the periph-eral levels of a 5-level Likert’s scale, and in binary
Table 2 Modified Delphi process overview
Delphi questionnaire rounds Response rate Completion rate Time period
Delphi round 1 28/33 (85%) 100% August 18, 2017–November 20, 2017
Delphi round 2 32/33 (97%) 97% March 12, 2018–May 13, 2018
Delphi round 3 27/33 (82%) 100% October 2, 2018–October 24, 2018
Live interim group discussions Participants Place Date
After Delphi 1 25/33 (76%) Utrecht December 8, 2017
After Delphi 2 23/33 (70%) Vienna September 20, 2018
questions or multiple choice questions not compatible with a Likert’s scale, if 70% of experts agreed on one answer. Regarding diagnostic criteria and symptom grading, consensus was considered to be achieved if 80% agreed upon one option.
We classified questions regarding diagnostic crite-ria and symptom score for DGCE into two domains depending on whether they occurred during (domain 1) or after (domain 2) the first 14 days postesophagec-tomy. We calculated Cronbach alpha for each of the domains to validate internal consistency.
Cronbach alpha was calculated using Stata 14 (StataCorp. 2015. Stata Statistical Software: Release 14; StataCorp LP, College Station, TX).
RESULTS
The Delphi questionnaires were sent to all 33 experts for completion.Table 1lists all participating experts, andTable 2shows an overview of the modified Delphi expert consensus process.
Expert demographics and study overview
The mean (range) number of esophagectomies per-formed by the responding 27 of 33 experts’ institu-tions was 81 (30–180) per year. The mean time the experts had been actively engaged in the surgical treat-ment of patients with esophageal cancer was 18 (6–35) years.
Relevance of time point of DGCE diagnosis
The Delphi round 1 questionnaire addressed whether a proposed early–late DGCE dichotomy should be established. Consensus was reached that DGCE should be classified as early if diagnosed within the first 14 days of surgery and late if diagnosed later.
Early DGCE
Frequency and specificity of symptoms typical for early DGCE
Based on the literature search 17 symptoms were evaluated. In Delphi round 1, 14 of the 17 symptoms for early DGCE were excluded according to the crite-ria of the consensus algorithm (see Table 3). At the
first live interim group discussion held on Decem-ber 8, 2017, concern was raised that even the symp-toms retained after the first Delphi session would be too unspecific and rather represents general postop-erative symptoms. Consensus to abort both further attempts to incorporate symptoms in the early DGCE diagnostic criteria and to design a symptom grading scale for early DGCE was reached in Delphi round 2 by 29 of 32 (91%) and 26 of 31 (84%) experts, respectively.
Diagnostic criteria for early DGCE
Six diagnostic modalities were included based on the literature search. After Delphi round 1, all diag-nostic modalities (chest x-ray, upper gastrointestinal [GI] water-soluble contrast radiogram, upper GI endoscopy, gastric scintigram, computerized tomog-raphy with oral contrast, and timed barium swal-low) remained as candidates for further evaluation (Table 4). At the first live interim group discussion after Delphi round 1, a unanimous suggestion regarding early DGCE diagnostic criteria emerged as follows: large amount of nasogastric tube drainage fluid or dilated gastric conduit on frontal chest x-ray and upper GI water-soluble contrast radio-gram showing delayed contrast passage to the duodenum.
These diagnostic criteria were subsequently tested in Delphi round 2 and were accepted by 29 of 32 (91%) experts, in effect achieving formal consensus. However, at the second live interim discussion held on September 20, 2018, several participating experts questioned the lack of standardization in the performance and interpretation of upper GI water-soluble contrast radiogram in the diagnosis of early DGCE. In addition, some experts expressed concern regarding risk of aspiration associated with this diagnostic procedure in the immediate postoperative phase. This eventually led to a revised suggestion, excluding upper GI water-soluble contrast radiogram, which was unanimously supported by the live meeting participants. The revised diagnostic criteria for early DGCE were subsequently tested in Delphi round 3. The final early DGCE criteria, accepted by 25 of 27 (93%) experts in Delphi round 3 were as follows: >500-mL diurnal nasogastric tube output measured
Table 3 Suggested symptoms of early and late DGCE and results of Delphi round 1
Early DGCE Late DGCE
Suggested symptoms of DGCE Frequency of occurrence considered 40% or lower‡ Specificity considered none or very low§ Action after Delphi round 1 Frequency of occurrence considered 40% or lower‡ Specificity considered none or very low§ Action after Delphi round 1 Vomiting 53.6% 21.4% Excluded 25.0% 17.9% FE Nausea 42.9% 53.6% Excluded 32.1% 42.9% FE
Dysphagia to solids 53.6% 60.7% Excluded 53.6% 57.1% Excluded
Dysphagia to liquidized/soft food
64.3% 53.6% Excluded 71.4% 57.1% Excluded
Dysphagia to liquids 82.1% 53.6% Excluded 78.6% 67.9% Excluded
Oral intake intolerance† 50.0% 42.9% Excluded 42.9% 28.6% FE
Early satiety/fullness 10.7% 28.6% FE 10.7% 25.0% FE
Regurgitation 17.9% 32.1% FE 25.0% 25.0% FE
Heart burn (cervical) 60.7% 82.1% Excluded 60.7% 64.3% Excluded
Bloating 53.6% 67.9% Excluded 60.7% 64.3% Excluded
Chest pressure 60.7% 78.6% Excluded 53.6% 67.9% Excluded
Pain 82.1% 96.4% Excluded 85.7% 89.3% Excluded
Coughing 35.7% 57.1% Excluded 32.1% 50.0% Excluded
Recurring pneumonia 78.6% 46.4% Excluded 67.9% 42.9% Excluded
Loss of appetite 39.3% 67.9% Excluded 35.7% 67.9% Excluded
Inability to meet caloric need by oral intake
17.9% 57.1% Excluded 21.4% 35.7% FE
Large amount of gastric tube drainage fluid (only suggested in early DGCE)
39.3% 14.3% FE NA NA NA
†Excluded in Delphi 2 due to redundancy.
‡Percentage of experts considering symptom occurring in 40% of DGCE cases or less in early and late DGCE, respectively.
§Percentage of experts considering symptom specificity very low or none in early and late DGCE, respectively.
FE, further evaluation in the consensus process.
Table 4 Suggested diagnostic modalities for early and late DGCE and results of Delphi round 1
Early DGCE Late DGCE
Diagnostic modality Support of diagnosis
considered slight or none† Action after Delphiround 1 Support of diagnosisconsidered slight or none† Action after Delphiround 1
Delayed contrast passage to the duodenum on upper
gastrointestinal water-soluble contrast radiogram
3.6% FE 10.7% FE
Wide gastric tube with minimal contrast passage below the pylorus on CT thorax–abdomen with on table oral contrast
3.6% FE 3.6% FE
Dilated gastric tube on chest x-ray
3.6% FE 25.0% FE
Delayed esophagogastric emptying on timed barium swallow
10.7% FE 10.7% FE
50% gastric emptying time (T50) > 180 minutes on gastric scintigraphy
21.4% FE 17.9% FE
Marked retention of food on upper gastrointestinal endoscopy despite >4 hours fasting
14.3% FE 10.7% FE
†Percentage of experts considering the strength of support to the diagnosis slight or none, in early and late DGCE, respectively.
on the morning of postoperative day 5 or later (but within 14 days of surgery) or > 100% increased gastric tube width on frontal chest x-ray projection (in comparison to baseline chest x-ray taken on the day
of surgery) together with the presence of an air–fluid level within 14 days of surgery (Fig. 1).
The Cronbach alpha level of internal consistency for domain 1 with 47 items was 0.89.
Fig. 1 Final Consensus Statement on DGCE.
Late DGCE
Frequency and specificity of symptoms of late DGCE
Based on the literature search, 16 symptoms were included for evaluation. In Delphi round 1, 10 out of the 16 symptoms were excluded according to the criteria of the consensus algorithm (Table 3). At the first live interim group discussion, removal of one of the remaining symptoms, ‘oral intake intolerance’ was suggested due to redundancy. This suggestion was subsequently accepted by 28 of 31 (90%) experts in Delphi round 2.
Diagnostic criteria for late DGCE
Six diagnostic modalities were included based on the literature search. None of the six diagnostic modali-ties were excluded in the first Delphi round (Table 4). Based on the results of Delphi round 1, a suggestion of a framework design for diagnostic criteria of late DGCE was generated during the first live interim group discussion. Hence, items were provided for Del-phi round 2 that were designed to define specific parts of the diagnostic criteria. The framework design for diagnostic criteria of late DGCE was as follows: the
patient should have a specified number of DGCE symptoms (selected in Delphi round 1) and DGCE on functional imaging. The framework design for diag-nostic criteria of late DGCE was accepted by 30 of 32 (94%) experts in Delphi round 2. Opinion was divided in Delphi round 2 regarding the number of symptoms required for the diagnosis of late DGCE. Some 14 of 31 experts considered 2 symptoms appropriate and 14 of 31 three symptoms. The second criterion within the framework design was that diagnosis of DGCE should be supported by functional imaging. The pre-ferred functional imaging was water-soluble contrast swallow for 48.4%, barium swallow for 32.3%, and scintigraphy for 19.3% of participants. At the second live interim group discussion, a first definition of the diagnostic criteria for late DGCE was proposed, unanimously suggesting a minimum number of symp-toms of two and additionally a minimum severity of each of those symptoms of 2 points (presence of the symptom graded by the patient as ‘quite a bit’ or ‘very much’) on a 0–3 points scale. Furthermore, the functional imaging was unanimously suggested to include both the option of barium swallow and the option of upper GI water-soluble contrast radiogram. The revised diagnostic criteria for late DGCE were subsequently tested in Delphi round 3. The final late DGCE criteria accepted by 24 of 27 (89%) experts were as follows: the patient should have ‘quite a bit’ or ‘very much’ of at least two of the following symptoms: early satiety/fullness, vomiting, nausea, regurgitation or inability to meet caloric need by oral intake and delayed contrast passage on upper GI water-soluble contrast radiogram or on timed barium swallow (until precise evaluation criteria are available, relying on the verdict ‘delayed contrast passage’ by an expert radiologist) (Fig. 1).
Symptom grading tool for late DGCE
The design of a symptom grading tool based on the symptom grading system used in the EORTC Health related Quality of Life Questionnaires was accepted by 26 of 28 (93%) experts in Delphi round 1.15
Consequently, when reporting symptom severity, the presence and severity of each symptom should be graded as follows: ‘not at all’, ‘a little’, ‘quite a bit’, or ‘very much’, generating 0, 1, 2, or 3 points, respectively. For the five symptoms retained after Delphi round 2 as presented above, the minimum score would be 0, and the maximum score would be 15. The final symptom grading tool for late DGCE presented in Figure 1 was accepted by 27 of 31 (87%) experts in Delphi round 2. A questionnaire for symptom grading of DGCE after esophagectomy is presented inFigure 2.
The Cronbach alpha level of internal consistency for domain 2 with 45 items was 0.85.
DISCUSSION
To date, the studies focusing on DGCE have relied on local practice or diagnostic criteria created for the purpose of each individual study, making valid com-parisons between studies and summaries of results difficult.10 The need for widely accepted
diagnos-tic criteria has been mentioned in the conclusion of several trials, particularly in studies attempting to compare or summarize the results of multiple stud-ies.9,10,16In this study, a modified Delphi process was
used based on the opinion of an international expert panel, to establish the diagnostic criteria for early and late DGCE, and a symptom severity grading tool for late DGCE.
These results can be used to compare the outcomes of DGCE in various studies determining poste-sophagectomy morbidity and quality of life. In addition, the symptom grading tool for late DGCE provides a common symptom grading system.
A strength of this consensus process is the combination of the Delphi method and the live group discussions. The Delphi part allowed all participants to independently express their opinion without any peer pressure or influence of dominant speakers.11
Participants were prompted to comment specific parts of each Delphi round, and free opportunity for additional comments or proposals was given. The interim group discussions allowed for an open, structured discussion on relevant topics regarding safety, clinical relevance, and feasibility of specific parts of the diagnostic criteria and symptom score. Any suggestion, addition, or revision of former results provided in the interim group discussions was put to test in a subsequent Delphi round. A further strength of this study is the international participation of experts from three continents, indicating that the principal consensus statement on DGCE may be adapted in various countries despite local practice differences.
The live interim group discussions unavoidably carry a risk of strong opinion affecting the consensus process, and approximately 1/
4 of the expert group
were not present at those meetings (Table 2). A majority of the experts did, however, participate in the live interim group discussions, and care was taken that any suggestions formed at those meetings, such as the final statement, would be tested in a subsequent survey. A weakness of this study is that available scientific evidence is limited, and the statement is thus based only on expert opinion. Further studies are mandatory to validate the diagnostic criteria and symptom score against diagnostic modalities. Despite the lack of validation, it may be argued that the diagnostic criteria and symptom score carry at least the same validity as criteria singularly created for the purpose of solitary studies and furthermore carries the strength of a
Fig. 2 DGCE questionnaire after esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction.
consensus reached within an international group of experts.
This study sought to provide diagnostic criteria for early and late DGCE and a symptom severity score for DGCE regardless of whether a whole stomach or a gastric tube was used as a conduit. To avoid disparity in the consensus process regarding the use of chest x-ray in the early DGCE diagnostic criteria, all items concerning functional radiology in the questionnaires and during interim group discussions were focused on the use of a gastric tube conduit. Whether the diagnostic criteria for early DGCE are less applicable in the presence of a whole stomach conduit remains to be evaluated.
In conclusion, this modified Delphi consensus pro-cess provides diagnostic criteria for early and late DGCE and a symptom grading tool supported by a group of international experts. This will be an impor-tant tool that can be used for future studies and allows defining a benchmark on DGCE.
SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
Supplementary data are available at DOTESO
online.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The European Minimally Invasive Osophagectomy (MIO) Think Tank group is sponsored by Medtronic. The following authors are members of MIO Think Tank group: Mark I. van Berge Henegouwen, Chris-tiane Bruns, Asif Chaudry, Edward Cheong, Miguel A. Cuesta, Suzanne S. Gisbertz, Christian Gutschow, Richard van Hillegersberg, Arnulf Hölscher, Misha Luyer, Stuart Mercer, Krishna Moorthy, Philippe Nafteux, Grard Nieuwenhuijzen, Piet Pattyn, Camiel Rosman, Jelle P. Ruurda, Jari Räsänen, Paul M. Schneider, Wolfgang Schröder, Bruno Sgromo, Hans Van Veer, and Magnus Nilsson.
References
1 Mariette C, Taillier G, Van Seuningen I, Triboulet J P. Fac-tors affecting postoperative course and survival after en bloc resection for esophageal carcinoma. Ann Thorac Surg 2004; 78: 1177–83.
2 Sutcliffe R P, Forshaw M J, Tandon R et al. Anastomotic strictures and delayed gastric emptying after esophagectomy: incidence, risk factors and management. Dis Esophagus 2008; 21: 712–7.
3 Anandavadivelan P, Martin L, Djarv T, Johar A, Lagergren P. Nutrition impact symptoms are prognostic of quality of life and mortality after surgery for oesophageal cancer. Cancers (Basel) 2018; 10(9).
4 Ha S I, Kim K, Kim J S. The influence of symptoms on quality of life among patients who have undergone oesophageal cancer surgery. Eur J Oncol Nurs 2016; 24: 13–9.
5 Benedix F, Willems T, Kropf S, Schubert D, Stubs P, Wolff S. Risk factors for delayed gastric emptying after esophagectomy. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2017; 402: 547–54.
6 Lanuti M, de Delva P E, Wright C D et al. Post-esophagectomy gastric outlet obstruction: role of pyloromyotomy and manage-ment with endoscopic pyloric dilatation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2007; 31: 149–53.
7 Lee H S, Kim M S, Lee J M, Kim S K, Kang K W, Zo J I. Intrathoracic gastric emptying of solid food after esophagec-tomy for esophageal cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 2005; 80: 443–7. 8 Collard J M, Romagnoli R, Otte J B, Kestens P J. The dener-vated stomach as an esophageal substitute is a contractile organ. Ann Surg 1998; 227: 33–9.
9 Akkerman R D, Haverkamp L, van Hillegersberg R, Ruurda J P. Surgical techniques to prevent delayed gastric emptying after esophagectomy with gastric interposition: a systematic review. Ann Thorac Surg 2014; 98: 1512–9.
10 Arya S, Markar S R, Karthikesalingam A, Hanna G B. The impact of pyloric drainage on clinical outcome following esophagectomy: a systematic review. Dis Esophagus 2015; 28: 326–35.
11 McMillan S S, King M, Tully M P. How to use the nomi-nal group and Delphi techniques. Int J Clin Pharm 2016; 38: 655–62.
12 Powell C. The Delphi technique: myths and realities. J Adv Nurs 2003; 41: 376–82.
13 Bennett C, Vakil N, Bergman J et al. Consensus statements for management of Barrett’s dysplasia and early-stage esophageal adenocarcinoma, based on a Delphi process. Gastroenterology 2012; 143: 336–46.
14 Visser E, van Rossum P S N, van Veer H et al. A structured training program for minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer—a Delphi consensus study in Europe. Dis Esophagus 2018; 31.
15 Aaronson N K, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B et al. The Euro-pean Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in interna-tional clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 85: 365–76.
16 Urschel J D, Blewett C J, Young J E, Miller J D, Bennett W F. Pyloric drainage (pyloroplasty) or no drainage in gastric recon-struction after esophagectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Dig Surg 2002; 19: 160–4.
